Housing advisor with 21 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy process broke training promise
A housing options advisor who was dismissed after failing a competitive interview was found to have been unfairly dismissed because the council failed to provide promised training and support. The tribunal awarded £2,698 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #restructuring
- #competitive-interview
- #training-promise
- #long-term-sickness
- #procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Housing Options Advisor from November 2000 until dismissal on 17 August 2021.
- The respondent restructured the Housing Needs Service, replacing the Housing Options Advisor role with Housing Solutions Officer.
- A matching exercise concluded the old and new roles were not substantially the same, requiring competitive interviews.
- The claimant was dismissed after failing to attend a competitive interview scheduled for 11 May 2021.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because the respondent failed to provide the promised training and support before the interview.
- The tribunal found that the claimant would have been dismissed four weeks later even with a fair procedure.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a housing advisor, later becoming Housing Options Advisor.
-
Restructure business case published
Respondent published a business case to restructure the Housing Needs Service, proposing to replace Housing Options Advisor with Housing Solutions Officer.
-
Consultation started
Group meeting held for affected staff; claimant informed her role was at risk.
-
Matching exercise
Managers decided the old and new roles were not substantially the same, requiring competitive interviews.
-
Competitive interview (reconvened)
Claimant's interview was reconvened after being suspended in July; she scored poorly.
-
Dismissal notice
Claimant given written notice of termination on grounds of redundancy, with last day 13 December 2019.
-
Appeal upheld
Appeal officer Mr Saigol upheld the appeal, reinstating claimant and promising a 10-week training and development plan before a further interview.
-
Sick leave started
Claimant began long-term sickness absence for depression around the time of her mother's death.
-
Training invitation during sick leave
Mr Fairclough invited claimant to training and warned of a competitive interview in late August, despite her sick leave.
-
Return to work
Claimant returned to work on a phased basis after sick leave.
-
Training provided
Claimant received three days of remote training (23, 24, 29 March) but struggled with the content.
-
Interview invitation
Claimant invited to competitive interview on 11 May 2021 via personal email.
-
Claimant declined interview
Claimant did not attend the interview, stating she needed more time and training.
-
Dismissal
Claimant received dismissal letter with effect from 17 August 2021.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal against dismissal heard by Mr Ellerby, who upheld the dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the redundancy dismissal was unfair due to procedural failings, and whether the claimant was subjected to age discrimination or harassment related to age.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The council had promised a 10-week training and development plan to prepare the claimant for a competitive interview, but only provided three days of training. The claimant struggled with the content and declined to attend the interview, leading to her dismissal.
However, the tribunal also found that even with a fair procedure, the claimant would have been dismissed four weeks later, as she was unlikely to pass the competitive interview. This reduced the compensatory award.
- Basic award: £0
- Compensatory award: £2,698.06
- Total damages: £2,698.06
Lessons & takeaways
- If an employer promises training or support as part of a redundancy process, failing to deliver it can make a dismissal unfair.
- Long-serving employees (over 20 years) are entitled to a higher standard of procedural fairness in redundancy situations.
- Competitive interviews for new roles must be conducted fairly, with adequate preparation time and training for existing staff.
- A claimant's own conduct (e.g., declining an interview) may not reduce compensation if the employer's failings caused the situation.
A broken promise that led to unfair dismissal
This case shows how a redundancy process can become unfair when an employer fails to keep its word. The claimant, a housing options advisor with 21 years' service, was at risk of redundancy after a restructure. Her employer, the London Borough of Redbridge, initially dismissed her but upheld her appeal and promised a 10-week training and development plan to help her compete for a new role.
Instead of the promised support, the claimant received only three days of remote training. She found the content difficult and asked for more time. When she was invited to a competitive interview, she declined, saying she was not ready. The council dismissed her for failing to attend the interview.
What the council could have done differently
The tribunal found that the council's failure to deliver the training plan was a serious procedural flaw. If the council had provided the full 10-week plan, the claimant would have had a fair chance to prepare. Instead, she was set up to fail. The council could have avoided this by sticking to its commitments and allowing more time for training, especially given the claimant's long service and recent return from sick leave.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes must be fair, particularly for long-serving employees. Promises made during an appeal must be honoured. Employers who rush the process or cut corners on training risk being found to have acted unfairly. The compensation here was modest because the tribunal concluded the claimant would have been dismissed anyway, but the principle stands: procedural fairness is not optional.
Similar cases
Meter reader with 16 years' service unfairly dismissed for ill health capability
A meter reader who was dismissed while on long-term sick leave after a motorbike accident has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim. The tribunal found that Morrison Data Services Ltd failed to obtain an up-to-date occupational health report before deciding to dismiss.
20-year manager dismissed for capability after employer refused to adjust role for disability
A Global Governance Risk and Compliance Manager with 20 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after GlaxoSmithKline failed to make reasonable adjustments for her hand disability. The tribunal awarded £24,785 for injury to feelings.
Clinical Support Worker awarded statutory redundancy payment after 19 years' service
A tribunal awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £2,077.16 to a Clinical Support Worker with 19 years' service, finding that his refusal of an alternative role was not unreasonable.
Train driver dismissed while medical evidence said he could return: a capability case that failed to consult
A London Underground train driver with five years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against after being sacked for long-term sickness despite occupational health and a specialist both saying he could return with adjustments.